¹ It is curious that Theophrastus, , Hist. Plant. VIII. xi. 6Google Scholar, remarks that millet keeps particularly well in Media.

² Rémusat, A. in Nouv. Mél. Asiat. i. p. 218Google Scholar.

^2a Sachau, E., Aramäische Papyrus u. Ostraka aus…..Elephantine, p. xxviii. P. 13443, c. 500 B.C.Google Scholar

³ British Museum, Add. MS. 34473(1); New Palacographical Soc. i. 2.

⁴ Berlin P. 13217: Berliner Klassikertexte v. 2, p. 73 sqq.; W. Schubart, Pap. Gr. Berol. 30 a; New Pal. Soc. ii. 28.

⁵ The changes in the letters used on Parthian coins seem due mostly to unintelligent copying by a series of engravers rather than to the development of Greek writing as practically used in Parthian lands; see J. de Morgan, Rev. Arch. 1912, pp. 1–31, ‘Étude sur la décadence de l'écriture grecque sous la dynastie des Arsacides’; but one or two details recall our documents. See also W. Wroth, Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Parthia, 1903.

^5a Palaeogr. Soc. ii. 184, date.

⁶ P. Lond. (Brit. Mus.), iii. 1178, Pl. XL., l. 66 sqq.; cf. Mitteis-Wilcken, , Grundzüge und Chrestomathie der Papyruskunde, I. ii. p. 184Google Scholar.

⁷ Introd. to Gr. and Latin Palaeogr. (1912), p. 142 (No. 2).

⁸ Gr. Palaeogr. ² Taf. I. Nos. 10, 11.

⁹ Thirty-six Engravings of Texts and Alphabets from the Herculanean Fragments, Oxford, 1891, NO. 3, Demetrii, in Aporias Polyaeni; cf. Photographs of Facsimiles … in the Bodleian Library, published by the Oxford Philological Society, 1889, vol. vi. No. 1243. This shows the rounded α, but Kenyon, (‘The Palaeogr. of the Herc. Pap.,’ Festschr. Th. Gomperz dargebr. p. 376)Google Scholar seems to deny that this occurs at Herculaneum.

¹⁰ Oxyrhynchus Pap. ii. p. 140, Pl. V. (p. 33).

¹¹ Something like it appears on a tetradrachm of Phrahates IV., B.M.C. Parthia, Pl. XVIII. 16.

¹² P. Petr., ii. introd., p. 39, No. IV. 11 [p. 14], Pl. IV. a, ll. 4, 7, c. 255 B.C.; cf. F. W. G. Foat, J.H.S. xxii. p. 145: also P. Hib. i. 66, l. 1, Camb. Univ. Lib. Add. MS. 4465.

¹³ Μ is sometimes Π on Parthian coins, e.g. Phrahates III. B.M.C. Parthia, Pl. XI. 1.

¹⁴ A similar νι in Ἀπολλώνιος (Schubart, , Pap. Gr. Berol. 8 c, 104 B.C.)Google Scholar. This and ib. 8 d show the nearest approach to our η that I have met.

¹⁵ Some hundred and fifty are known with dates of the Seleucid Era and some forty with the addition of the Arsacid (see below). The first to publish one of these was Smith, G., Assyrian Discoveries, p. 389Google Scholar, but we owe most knowledge of them to Fr.Strassmaier, J. N., Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, iii. (1888), pp. 129–158Google Scholar, ‘Arsaciden Inschriften’; iv. (1889), pp. 76–89 (J. Epping); v. (1890), pp. 341–366 (Epping and Strassmaier), ‘Neue Babylonische Planeten Tafeln,’ continued in vi. (1891), pp. 89–202, 217–244; vii. (1892), pp. 197–209, ‘Einige chronologische Daten aus astronomischer Rechnungen’; historical results summed up in viii. (1893), pp. 106–113, ‘Zur Chronologie der Seleuciden’; cf. Fr.Kugler, F. X., Zt. f. Ass. xv. pp. 178–209Google Scholar, ‘Zur Erklärung der Babylonischen Mondtafeln’; of Reisner's, G. A. ‘Sumerisch-Babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln Griechischer Zeit’ (Kgl. Museen zu Berlin, Mitth. aus der Orient. Samml. x. 1896)Google Scholar only a dozen have Arsacid dates, the colophons being generally broken: the editor gives no translation or transcription; this is supplied in a few cases by Miss Hussey, M. A., Amer. Journ. of Sem. Lang. xxiii. (1906–1907), p. 142Google Scholar: Clay, A. T., Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan, ii. (N.Y. 1913)Google Scholar, ‘Legal Documents from Erech dated in the Seleucid Era,’ includes three with Arsacid dates; others are still unpublished.

^15a W. Wroth, B.M.C. Parthia, p. lxv.

¹⁶ Erech. A. T. Clay, op. cit. No. 1, pp. 36, 37: ^m and ^f are the ‘determinatives’ for masculine and feminine persons, and ^kan for numerals.

¹⁷ Strassmaier, , Zt. f. Ass. viii. p. 108Google Scholar: he always writes sanat the construct for šattu, and 47^tu the ordinal for 47^kan.

¹⁸ Strassmaier, op. cit. p. 110.

¹⁹ Erech. Clay, op. cit. No. 53, pp. 13, 33, 87. It is written by the scribe of his No. 53 dated A. Sel. 173.

²⁰ e, f, Strassmaier, op. cit. p. 111.

²¹ Strassmaier, op. cit. p. 111. Ten examples of this formula bring us down to Tišri 157 = 221 (B.C. 91), the date of Berlin, V.A.Th. 245, Reisner, No. 46, pp. viii, 82.

²² The month is Adar II., the last of the year.

²³ Berlin, V.A.Th. 265, 728, Reisner, No. 51, p. 93,ll. 9–11. Though the signs are not clear, the first wife's name gives us the right to supplements according to i and j. For the translation, see below, p. 40 n. 53.

²⁴ Brit. Mus. Rm. 844. Brit. Mus. Rm. 710 shows part of this formula for the preceding year, 159 = 223; v. Zt. f. Ass. vi. p. 226, viii. p. 112.

²⁵ Pennsylvania Mus. 9. 21-7-88, corrected by reference to the original; cf. Zt. f. Ass. vi. p. 222; Schrader, Eb., SB. d. k. pr. Ak. d. W. zu Berlin, 1891, p. 3Google Scholar.

²⁶ Zt. f. Ass. vi. p. 226.

²⁷ Berlin, V.A.Th. 573, Reisner, No. 27, pp. viii. (206 is misprint for 226), 54, rev. l. 15; ib. No. 55, pp. ix, 155, rev. l. 33, bears date 163 = 226, probably a mistake for 227; Strassmaier, , Zt. f. Ass. v. p. 355, viii. p. 112, gives year 164 = 228Google Scholar; and Reisner, No. 49, pp. ix. 89, l. 21, year [167] = 231 (B.C. 81–80): all these have the same formula.

²⁸ Brit. Mus. Rm. IV. 118 A; Zt. f. Ass. iii. p. 135, iv. p. 78 (Epping), viii. p. 112, wrongly read šar šarrâni: see Schrader, , SB. d. k. pr. Ak. d. W. zu Berlin, 1890, p. 1327Google Scholar.

^28a n, o, Strassmaier, , Zt. f. Ass. viii. p. 112Google Scholar.

²⁹ Strassmaier, , Zt. f. Ass. viii. p. 112Google Scholar.

³⁰ Strassmaier, , Zt. f. Ass. vii. p. 204Google Scholar. This is the latest cuneiform date known, Oppert's year 5 of Pi-ha-ri-su, king of Pa-ar-su, Doe. Juridiques de l'Assyrie, p. 341, not being accepted as Pacorus.

³¹ Both from Babylon, restored by Haussoullier, B., ‘Inscriptions Grecques de Babylone,’ Klio, ix. (1909), p, 353, Nos. 2 and 1Google Scholar; but I am responsible for in s. Mr. Haussoullier says ‘quand ils [sc. les Grecs] emploient le verbe … le génitif n'est plus de mise et ils le suppriment,’ but it fills out the line well, and I give reasons for it below. The text is a list of victors, both and νέοι, in athletic contests.

³² Delos: Dittenberger, O.G.I. i. 430.

³³ Bevan, , House of Seleucus, ii. p. 233Google Scholar; Breccia, E., Klio, v. ‘Mitridate il Grande di Partia,’ pp. 49–54Google Scholar.

³⁴ A. Sel. 182: Zt. f. Ass. p. 202; Reisner, Hymnen, No. 25, v. A. T. Clay, op. cit. p. 12.

³⁵ There must be something wrong about šattu 108^kanAr-ša-ka-a šar šarrâni in Zt. f. Ass. iii. (1888), p. 130, No. 1, unless Breccia, E., Klio, v. p. 41Google Scholar, n. 1, is right in taking it as a solitary Arsacid date without a Seleucid, and so giving the title šar šarráni to Mithradates I.; more probably it ought to be A. Sel. 208, as Strassmaier says (Zt. f. Ass. viii. p. 111) that g (above) is the first with that title. The 156 of Zt. f. Ass. iii. p. 130, No. 2, is the A.Ars. of a double date which has lost its A. Sel.; the rest are mostly corrected in Zt. f. Ass. viii. p. 112.

³⁶ SB. Berl. 1890, pp. 1319–1332, ‘Die Datirung der babylonischen sog. Arsaciden-inschriften,’ ‘Nachtrag,’ ib. 1891, p. 3.

³⁷ Almagest, ix. 7; xi. 7: ed. Heiberg, I. ii. pp. 267, 419.

³⁸ v. W. Wroth, op. cit. p. lxv, and his convenient table of the ordinary or Greek Seleucid Era, p. 282. Ginzel, F. K., Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie, establishes the beginning of the ordinary Seleucid Era (iii. 1914, p. 41)Google Scholar and of the ‘Baby lonian’ and ‘Arsacid’ Eras (i. 1906, pp. 136, 137) as above. Fr.Kugler, F. X., Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, i. (1907), p. 214Google Scholar, concurs.

³⁹ ‘Zur Arsaciden Era,’ Klio, v. (1905), pp. 128–130.

⁴⁰ Strassmaier, Zt. f. Ass. iii. p. 131, No. 1, ll. 7, 8, A.Ars. 152 = A.Sel. 217; and viii. p. 111, A.Ars. 111=A.Sel. 174; h above, Reisner, Hymnen, No. 51, introd. p. ix. A.Ars. 157? = A.Sel. 221, but text, p. 93, rev. l. 9, A.Ars. 155; No. 55, introd. p. ix. A.Ars. 163 = A. Sel. 227, but text, p. 155, rev. l. 33, A.Sel. 226. Kugler, ap. Haussoullier, says he knows of but one instance.

⁴¹ Professor Rapson has suggested (Num. Chron. 1893, p. 212) that a drachma bearing ΕΚΠ is dated by the Arsacid Era, but v. Wroth, op. cit. p. 21, No. 10, and note 3. ΕΚΡ is in the exergue, the right place for a date; but there are unexplained monograms on other similar coins, and it may be that had the letters lent themselves thereto they would have appeared in the field as a monogram.

⁴² I have mostly followed Mr. Wroth, B.M.C. Parthia, and my new material has supported his conclusions in one or two points; but the attribution of undated coins to particular kings is so subjective that it is very unsafe to rely on numismatic evidence.

⁴³ For the significance of the titles, v. Bevan, E. R., ‘Antiochus III. and his title Great King,’ J.H.S. xxii. p. 241Google Scholar.

^43a So Wroth, op. cit. p. xxiii sqq.; Num. Chron. 1900, p. 186 sqq.: Gardner had said Mithr. I.

⁴⁴ The sign for this month is not quite certain, but h must be subsequent, being dated Adar II., the last month of the year.

⁴⁵ Wroth, op. cit. p. 194; B.M.C. pp. xxiii, 23.

⁴⁶ Plutarch, , Pompey, 38Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ I have restored tablet h as having named two queens, but it is possible that Dr. Johns should have vetoed this, as the characters given by Reisner are not exactly ^faššati-šu. Aši 'abatum may have been the principal queen and the other the queen kept at Babylon. The names seem Iranian: Aši'abatum suggests - ašivant, ‘giving rewards,’ and pati, ‘lord,’ or pāta, ‘protected’; Pîritâna, pir, ‘old man,’ and tana, ‘descendant’; Izbubarzâ, ispahi, ‘soldier,’ bar∂z, ‘high,’ or var∂z, ‘work’: but these are mere guesses, and the derivations need not be sought in Iranian at all.

⁴⁸ F. C. Burkitt, in notes to a revised translation of ‘The Hymn of the Soul,’ The Quest, v. No. 4 (1914), quotes our documents to illustrate the first lines of a letter to the exiled Prince, ‘From thy Father, the King of Kings,— from the Queen, thy Mother,—And from thy Brother,—to thee, Our Son in Egypt, be greeting’; but it is a family letter, not a state document. Kamnaskires of Elam does name his queen Anzaze on his coins: Head, B. V., Hist. Num. ² p. 822Google Scholar; A. de la Füye, Rev. Num. 1902, Pl. V. 2–6; A.Sel. 231.

⁴⁹ Bevan, , House of Seleucus, ii. p. 279Google Scholar.

^49a So Lucan, viii. 404, iacuere sorores in regum thalamis, proves to be true.

⁵⁰ Moulton, J. H., Hibbert Lectures, 1913, ‘Early Zoroastrianism,’ pp. 205Google Scholarsqq. Gutschmid, p. 43, suggests that Phriapatius called himself Philadelphus because of having complied with this custom, but the coins on which he founds this guess are assigned by Wroth to Artabanus I. (II.), who might so have expressed his regard for his great predecessor, Mithradates I. It is strange that the king of tablet n, who is said to have married his sister, is apparently Sinatruces, who came to the throne at the age of eighty.

⁵¹ Crassus, 32 fin.

⁵² Letters dated 16 Oct., 9 and 11 Nov., 1914, 25 Jan. 1915.

⁵³ ‘I suggest that we should read the verb as it(t)aridu, the Nifal of tarâdu The ordinary meaning of taradu in Assyrian is “to pursue,” but in this phrase I would assign to it the meaning “to follow, to continue” (in the Nifal, of course, “to be continued”). We may compare the Arabic tarada, which in St. X. has the meaning “to pass from one subject to another,” “to pass from one class to another” (Dozy, , Supplément aux Dictionnaires Arabes, ii. p. 33)Google Scholar; while in St. II. it has the meaning “to prolong” (of the voice), and in St. VIII. “to flow in a regular course” (of water), “to be consecutive,” “to continue uninterruptedly” (Lane, , Arabic-English Lexicon, pp. 1838 f.)Google Scholar. In Hebrew, too, tarad is used in the Qal with the meaning “to be continuous.” The word only occurs in the phrase delep(h)tōrēd(h), “a continuous dripping,” i.e. in which one drop pursues another (cf. Gesenius, , Hebrew Lexicon, Oxford, 1906, p. 382)Google Scholar. We have thus ample justification, both from Arabic and Hebrew, for assigning this new meaning to the root in Assyrian—or, rather, in late Babylonian. The root meaning of “pursuit” is well brought out in its Hebrew use; and this closely parallels its employment in the Arsacid date-formulae— the idea of continuity regarded as an uninterrupted succession of separate units.’ Canon C. H. W. Johns, Litt.D., Master of St. Catharine's College, who gave me the reference to Clay's book and interpreted Reisner's for me, found the old reading ustarridu unsatisfactory, and heartily welcomed Dr. King's solution of the difficulty.

⁵⁴ A parallel to ša šumu-šu Gutarzâ on tablet k is perhaps found in the coin legends (the apparent date A.Sel. 273 = 40–39 B.C., puts it into the reign of Phrahates IV. rather than Mithradates III. as Wroth, p. 66, suggests) and (Wroth, p. 165), where the nominative is an awkward attempt to clear the sense.

⁵⁵ The second name of Aryazate, Automa, does a little suggest the end of Aši'abatum.

⁵⁶ Gutschmid, p. 80.

⁵⁷ Lib. XLII. ii. 3–6, iv. 1, 2.

⁵⁸ Justin, Prolog. XLI. MSS. have: In Parthis ut est constitutum imperium per Arsacem regem. Successores deinde eius Artabanus et Tigrane cognomine deus: a quo subacta est Media et Mesopotamia. Dictusque in excesu Arabiae situs. In Bactrianis autem, etc. Prol. XLII. … utque Phraati successit rex Mithridates cognomine magnus qui Armenis bellum intulit. Inde repetitae origines Armeniorum et situs. Ut varia complurium regum in Parthis successione imperium accepit Orodes, etc.

In Epitome XLI. Justin speaks of Arsaces (I.), his son Arsaces (II.), to whom he gives no other name, Pliriapatius, Phrahates (I.), Mithradates (I.), makes a digression to things Bactrian and returns to Mithradates (I.), his conquest of Media and Elymais as far as the Euphrates. In Epitome XLII. we have Phrahates (II.), Artabanus, Mithradates (II.), his attack on Armenia, an account of Armenia, and then the deposition of Mithradates (III.). Gutschmid, Comm. Crit. in Prol. Tr. Pomp. ap. Justinum ed. Rühl, p. lxi., and Gesch. Irans, p. 81 n., said that the words successores to Arabiae situs now in Prol. XLI. have fallen out between Armeniorum et situs and ut varia in Prol. XLII. because of the homoeoteleuton situs, situs, and have been put back into the wrong place: so Artabanus would be a successor of Mithradates II. and so would Tigranes, as he conquered Mesopotamia from M.'s heirs and assumed the title King of Kings. This seems very harsh; also the lost account of Arabia could not conceivably have come at the end of XLII. which brings events down to 20 B.C. I prefer Vaillant's old correction Mithridates for Tigranes, so Artabanus becomes the second name of Arsaces II. (210–191), the only Arsaeid without a second name. After a digression to Bactria we have mention of Mithradates I. and his conquests, which included Arabistán and gave good reason for an account of Arabia at the end of Book XLI. That Mithradates I. was called θεός we can infer from the coins assigned to his son and successor bearing the title The psychology of the copyist's mistake is that he was sure that Eupator, the only Mithradates he knew of, did not conquer Mesopotamia, so he substituted the name that lay nearest in his mind. I note that Th. Reinach, Mithridate Eupator, p. 310, Justi, , Ir. Namenbuch, pp. 31, 412Google Scholar, and de la Füye, Allotte, Rev. Num. 1904, p. 321Google Scholar, doubt Gutschmid's view, though Wroth accepts it, pp. xix., xxxi.

⁵⁹ Appian, Syr. 48, calls Tigranes the Great the son of Tigranes, and von Petrowicz thinks him an Arsacid; but Tigranes the Father was scarcely our Great King.

⁶⁰ Justin, XL. i. 3; Gutschmid, p. 82.

^60a Wroth, p. 107.

⁶¹ Josephus, , Ant. Jud. XVIII. ii. 4 (40)Google Scholar, on coins Wroth, pp. 139–141, Pl. XXIV. 1–3.

^61a Herodotus, iii. 66.

⁶² Dittenberger, , O.G.I. 225, l. 36Google Scholar.

⁶³ Ib. 238, l. 1. See his notes on both passages, mostly founded on Haussoullier, , Rev. de Philologic, xxv. (1901), p. 6sqq.Google Scholar; cf. Buckler, W. H., ‘Greek Inscr. from Sardes,’ in A.J.A. xvi. (1912), p. 69Google Scholar. Corvatta, A., ‘Divisione Amministrativa dell' Impero dei Seleucidi,’ Rendi conti d. r. Acc. d. Lincei, x. (1901), p. 149Google Scholar, does not seem to recognise them.

⁶⁴ O.G.I. 532, l. 38.

⁶⁵ Though for these I had recourse to Justi, F., Iranisches Namenbuch, Marburg, 1895Google Scholar, and Bartholomae, Chr., Altiranisches Wörterbuch, Strassburg, 1904Google Scholar; I should not have got far without the help and criticism of Professor J. H. Moulton, D.D., of Didsbury College, Manchester, Professor A. Carnoy, of Louvain, and Mr. E. J. Thomas, of the University Library, Cambridge, and I am much indebted to them. They are not, however, responsible for my errors.

^65a The word 5⁸ in III. looks like

⁶⁶ v. Salemann, C., Geiger u. Kuhn, Grundr. d. Iran. Phil. I. i. p. 261.Google Scholar

^66a Not very likely because αὐτῷ and αὐτὸν follow, but cf. P. Lips. 2, l. 10.

⁶⁷ v. Salemann, C., in Geiger u. Kuhn, Grundr. d. Iran. Phil. I. i. p. 261.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Ann. xi. 10.

⁶⁹ Moulton, J. H., Early Zoroastrianism, 1914, p. 233Google Scholar, and addenda facing p. xviii.

⁷⁰ Dittenberger, O.G.I. 345 (B.C. 92/1), l. 28 and note ad loc.

⁷¹ For a similar problem, cf. Kern, H., ‘Zur Gesch. d. Ausspr. des Griechischen: Widergabe Indischer Wörter bei gr. Autoren,’ ΕΛΛΑΣ, Leiden, 1889.Google Scholar He shows that the traditional Greek accentuation does not represent the Indian, e.g. Pâtaliputra; Bharukáccha; so my accentuation of these names is in accordance with meaningless custom.

⁷² Mitteis, , Grundzüge d. Papyruskunde, II. i. p. 76, n. 2.Google Scholar

⁷³ e.g. Schubart, Pap. Gr. Berol. 13, 13 B.C.

⁷⁴ B.G.U. Sonderheft, ‘Elephantine Papyri,’ ed. O. Rubensohn, Nos. 1–4, esp. pp. 5–8: Schubart, W.; Pap. Gr. Berol. 2, 4aGoogle Scholar; Wilcken, , Archiv f. Papyrusforschung, v. pp. 200–207Google Scholar; New Pal. Soc. ii. 26.

⁷⁵ See illustrations of P. Amh. 42. Pl. VIII.; P. Hibeh, 84a, Pl. IX.

⁷⁶ Ibscher, , Arch. f. Pap. v. p. 192.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Wilcken, loc. cit. p. 204; the latest is 131 B.C.

⁷⁸ e.g. P. Tebt. i. 105 (103 B.C.), Pl. VIII.

⁷⁹ P. Lond. 879, 1204, 881, 882, 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209 (iii. Pl. IV.–XI.), 123–88 B.C.: B.G.U. iii. 993 = Schubart, op. cit. 9.

⁸⁰ Wilcken, , Arch. f. Pap. iii. p. 523Google Scholar; compare P. Rein. 26 (Mitteis, Qrundz. II. ii. No. 164) with P. Rein. 14 and 20 (Mitteis, ib. 132, 133): dates 104, 110, and 108 B.C. For duplicate deeds in general see also Mitteis, op. cit. II. i. pp. 77, 78; P. M. Meyer, , Klio, vi. (1906), pp. 452–454Google Scholar; Gerhard, , Philologus, lxiii. (1904), pp. 500–503.Google Scholar The last cases of a or something like it are P. Tebt. 382 (31 B.C.) and 386 (12 B.C.); by that time the duplicate writing had gone out of use, Wilcken, , Arch. f. Pap. v. pp. 240, 241Google Scholar; Mitteis, op. cit. II. i. p. 54.

⁸¹ Grundz. II. i. pp. 53–55.

⁸² See Bry, M. J., La Vente dans les Papyrus Gréco-Égyptiens, Paris, 1909Google Scholar, and Mitteis, op. cit. II. i. pp. 167–183.

⁸³ e.g. Mitteis, II. ii. 252, which has both on one sheet.

⁸⁴ e.g. P. Lond. 154 (ii. p. 178) Mitteis, 255, 63 A.D., a document which presents us with many small analogies.

⁸⁵ e.g. Peiser, F. E., Babylonische Verträge Berlin, 1890, p. 131, No. xciv.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ A. T. Clay, op. cit. p. 25, No. 2 (No. 23).

⁸⁷ Dr. Preisigke first pointed this out in a letter to Mr. Bell. We had formerly been inclined to take it as a hereditary lease or emphyteusis.

⁸⁸ just might be meant to refer not to G. and his but to G. and B.

⁸⁹ Cf. the royal grant to Mnesimachus presupposed in the mortgage, A.J.A. 2nd series, xvi. (1912), W. H. Buckler, D. M. Robinson, ‘Greek Inscriptions from Sardes I.’ The is clearly not merely the first of the two deeds which constituted the Graeco-Egyptian double sale.

⁹⁰ Cf. P. Petr. iii. 21 (b). l. 5 (p. 44),

⁹¹ e.g. P. Eleph. 3: Ad. Berger, Strafklauseln in den Papyrusurkunden, passim.

⁹² Berger, op. cit. pp. 4–10.

^92a op. cit. p. 27, No. 2 (No. 23).

⁹³ Mitteis, , Reichsrecht u. Volksrecht, p. 511Google Scholar; Gortyn, , Rec. d. Inscr. Jur. Gr. i. p. 372Google Scholar, vi. § 38, l. 42; Heraclea (Lucania), ib. p. 202, ll. 109 sqq.; Athens, ib. p. 242, l. 18; Sardes, c. 300 B.C., A.J.A. xvi. p. 65.

⁹⁴ Ditt. O.G.I. 629, ll. 102, 121.

⁹⁵ Berger, pp. 26, 133; A.J.A. loc. cit. p. 80.

⁹⁶ Berger, p. 128. C.P.R. 220, is very similar.

⁹⁷ Berger, p. 82.

⁹⁸ e.g. Mitteis, Grundz. II. ii. 253, l. 12; C.P.R. 220, l. 11.

⁹⁹ e.g. I.o.s.P.E. ii. 54, l. 12; 400, l. 11, Panticapaeum and Phanagoria, corresponding to at Delphi, Ditt. Syll. ² 861, l. 8; 862, l. 11.

¹⁰⁰ e.g. B.G.U. i. 193 II. l. 19, iii. 987, l. 9 (Mitteis, 268, 269): in these, and in e.g. P. Lond. 251 (ii. p. 317), l. 15; B.G.U. iii. 887, we have slaves warranted free of ἐπαφή; Mitteis, , P. Lips. 4Google Scholar, l. 20, proposes ‘leprosy’ as its meaning since it always goes with and the like; cf. his summary, Grundz. II. i. p. 194, n. 2. In a Strassburg pap. (Preisigke, Arch. f. Tap. iii. p. 419, l. 30) this is very clear, but the document is 6th cent. and verbose. Berger, op. cit. p. 140, n. 4, makes it equal manus iniectio following Kübler, Zt. d. Savigny-Stiftung (Rom.), xxix. (1908), p. 474–479, in spite of a medical reply by Südhoff, ib. xxx. (1909), p. 406–409. Mitteis, loc. cit., remarks that ἐπαφή may have more than one meaning, and our document goes to confirm this. Heerwerden s.v. proposes ‘madness due to demoniacal possession,’ as he thinks no one could fail to spot leprosy, but Südhoff says the early stages may well be overlooked.

¹⁰¹ Aristot. H.A. VII. ii. 1.

¹⁰² The Reverend H. E. Fitzherbert, out of his practical experience of irrigation, approves this view; cf. Col. Sykes, P. M., History of Persia, ii. p. 495Google Scholar, ‘Each villager receives water every tenth day for about six or seven hours’ from the kanat; Curzon, G. N., Persia, i. p. 115 n.Google Scholar; Polybius, X. xxv. 2.

¹⁰³ Gr. Bürgschaftsrecht, i. (1909), pp. 340 sqq.

¹⁰⁴ Grenfell, , Erotic Fragment, l. 7.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Heerwerden cites P. Flor. 95, l. 15, cf. P. Grenf. ii. 80, l. 18; 81, l. 18.

¹⁰⁶ Matt. xxi. 33.

¹⁰⁷ P. Lips. i. 4, l. 6, cf. ll. 13, 34: (Mitteis, Grundz. II. ii. 171)

¹⁰⁸ Delphi, v. Partsch, op. cit. p. 350, n. 2.

¹⁰⁹ ibid. and Ditt. Syll. ² 850, l. 20.

¹¹⁰ Mitteis, , Reichsrecht u. Volksr. p. 504Google Scholar; ‘Lex. Rhet.’ ap. Bekker, Anecdota Gr. i. p. 193.

¹¹¹ P. Lond. 1204 (iii. p. 11) II. l. 17 (Mitteis, Grundz. 152).

¹¹² pace Mitteis and Partsch, loc. cit.

¹¹³ Rec. Inscr. Jur. Gr. i. pp. 64 sqq.; Plato, , Leges, xi. 915 D.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ For this question of surety and warranty besides Partsch, op. cit., whose Part I. only deals directly with old Greek law and not with papyri, v. Mitteis, , Grunz. II. i. pp. 264–270Google Scholar; Bry, , La Vente, pp. 267–294Google Scholar; and Thalheim, s.v. and in Pauly-Wissowa.

¹¹⁵ Mr. Bell says κ.τ.λ. is only specifying the obligation, not adding something to it, so that I should take (or as the probable correction.’

¹¹⁶ In C.I.G. 1838 b, l. 5, Corcyra, it is only rainwater.

¹¹⁷ For the κ, cf. Tsereteli, Abbrev. in Gr. MSS. ², Pl. VI., but it is perhaps more like a ζ.

¹¹⁸ A measure = 75 gallons: Josephus, Ant. Jud. XV. ix. 2, Aramaic kor corresponding to Hebrew homer.

¹¹⁹ σίκλος represents the vocalism of the construct perhaps the plural

¹²⁰ Wilcken, Gr. Ostraka, 1024, 1237, 1262.

¹²¹ ‘Lex. Rhet.’ ap. Bekker, Anecd. Gr. p. 249; cf. Mitteis, , Grundz. II. i. p. 161Google Scholar, also his ‘Geschichte der Erbpacht,’ Abhdl. d. sächs. Ges. d. Wiss., xx. No. 4, p. 9.

¹²² Peiser, F. E., Babylonische Verträge, p. 131Google Scholar, No. xciv. Br. Mus. 84. 2–11. 103, ll. 13–19.

¹²³ Peiser, , Keilinschriftliche Aktenstücke, pp. 81Google Scholar, 83, 84, is not quite pleased with the rendering.

¹²⁴ Bry, op. cit. pp. 104, 118–122; Mitteis, , Grundz. II. i. pp. 184–186.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ A. T. Clay, op. cit. p. 29, No. 3 (No. 24).

¹²⁶ Bevan, , House of Seleucus, i. p. 264.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Home of the Apollodorus whose παρθικά we miss so much.

¹²⁸ Ed. Bruns-Sachau, 1880.

¹²⁹ Reichsrecht u. Volksrecht, pp. 30 sqq.

¹³⁰ Chapot, V., ‘Les Destinées de l'Hellénisme au delà de l'Euphrate,’ Mém. de la Soc. des Antiquaires de France, lxiii. (1904), pp. 207–296Google Scholar, reviews the question very fully: our documents tend to show that he underrates the Greek element.

¹³¹ For its use as a lingua franca in lower Chaldaea and eastwards along the coasts, see Kennedy, J., ‘The Secret of Kanishka,’ ii. J.R.A.S. 1912, pp. 989–1018.Google Scholar

¹³² See Haussoullier's list in Mélanges Perrot, pp. 158, 159, and Klio, ix. pp. 352–363.

¹³³ O.G.I. 431.

¹³⁴ O.G.I. 432–434.

¹³⁵ The Greek sovrans naturally struck coins upon Greek standards which had to be tested by Greek weights, e.g. A. Dumont's (Mélanges, pp. 134–154) inscribed (17 grm. = 2 staters), (55 B.C.), from Hillah, showing how late Seleucid gold (as there is no Parthian) was still in circulation in Babylon.

¹³⁶ O.G.I. 253, 254; r and s supra, p. 36; J. Oppert, Expéd. Scient. en Mésopotamie (1863) i. p. 168; Dumont's weight; and a disk with shewing the first stage of Orientalization, ap. Haussoullier, Klio, ix. p. 362.

¹³⁷ O.G.I. 747 and Loftus, W. K., Travels and Researches in Chaldaea and Susiana, pp. 403, 404Google Scholar; Haussoullier, , Mél. Perrot, p. 157.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ A. T. Clay, op. cit. pp. 16–18, gives 24 Greek names from cuneiform tablets found here; a Greek actually dedicates a slave girl in a native temple. Cf. Oppert-Menant, , Documents Juridiques, p. 322Google Scholar, a Diocles, son of Anu-uballiṭ-su and an Isidore, cf. Anz, , Ursprung des Gnosticismus, p. 62.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ See O.G.I. 231–233.

¹⁴⁰ Chapot, op. cit. pp. 240–246. Oppert's inscription is part of a versified epitaph. Herodicus of Babylon could even write verse to make fun of the Alexandrian textual critics, ap. Athenaeum 222a. We have an Aramaean's name in Greek in C.I.Semit. ii. 72 from Telloh, c. 300,

¹⁴¹ The Book of Tobit is now supposed to have been written in Egypt and perhaps in Aramaic.

^141a Letter dated 2 Dec. 1913.

^141b Letter from Professor Nöldeke, 19 Nov. 1913.

¹⁴² ‘Étude sur la Numismatique de la Perside,’ Head, B. V., Corolla Numismatica, pp. 63–97Google Scholar, Pl. III.

¹⁴³ Wroth, op. cit. p. 272: Δ = p comes from Markov, Tr. Russ. Arch. Soc. Orient. Sect. vi. 1891, pp. 265–304, ‘Unpublished Arsacid Coins,’ Pl. III. 22.

¹⁴⁴ Markov, op. cit. p. 298, Pl. IV. 28, gives a coin of Sanabares from which we should get and but his alphabet is more Kharosthi.

¹⁴⁵ e.g. C.I.S. ii. 146, 147, and 142.

¹⁴⁶ The alphabet of ‘An Aramaic Inscription from Taxila,’ Barnett and Cowley, J.R.A.S. 1915, p. 34, is scarcely nearer ours.

¹⁴⁷ Thomas, E., J.R.A.S. 1868, pp. 241, 265.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ J.R.A.S. 1911, pp. 159–166, Cowley, A., ‘Another Unknown Language from Eastern Turkestan,’ as modified by Gauthiot, R., ib. pp. 497–507Google Scholar, ‘Note sur la Langue et l'Écriture inconnues des Documents Stein-Cowley.’ These were pointed out to me by Professor Rapson.

¹⁴⁹ The may be a and the last letter in 1² may be a Several words end in what looks like but I think it is more like : that is perhaps an argument for Aramaic. In book Pahlavi these letters except appear only in Semitic words; also π coincides with π and perhaps one character served for both in our alphabet, setting free for and the second forms I have suggested.

¹⁵⁰ Professor L. H. Gray read 1^6,7,8 as QῌTῌR BŠ QUDČ and 2⁸ as MLK, which disagrees with me in nearly every particular. Professor Bartholomae reads this last word as marak, M.Pers. ‘number,’ and 3⁷ as arz, ‘worth,’ with the numerals following, but I do not feel inclined to give up my and

¹⁵¹ Cf. the numerals in C.I.S. ii. 146, 147, and Lidzbarski, , Handb. d. Nordsemitischen Epigraphik, p. 200Google Scholar, Pl. XLVI.

¹⁵² I more and more incline to my second thoughts for and

¹⁵³ v. Lidzbarski, loc. cit., better still, Sachau, , Aramäische Papyrus und Ostraka aus Elephantine, Pl. 52Google Scholar, l. 11: Pahlavi hundreds go on the same principle, though the sign is not like this. If this is right the words marked 1¹ and 1² in the list must be corrected. is the regular ‘logogram’ for year in Pahlavi. It would give only the long form in Col. V.